Use of Co-Defendant Animal Husbandry Guidelines Not Covered

Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 772 F. Supp. 2d 994 (S.D. Ind. 2011) aff'd, 662 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2011)

Relying on her earlier decision in Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Advance Palmer Tech, 97 F. Supp. 2d 913, S.D. Ind., 2000, Judge Barker concluded that misrepresenting that price increases were as a result of husbandry concerns and "animal husbandry guidelines." The court, however, failed to recognize that the UEP Certification which Rose Acre eventually obtained in 2002 post dated the policy's inception. Failing to look at extrinsic evidence made available to the insurer in contravention of settled Indiana law, the court ignored undisputed evidence that Rose Acre properly contended that it "used the concern for animal welfare advertising idea on its internet website" which is an advertisement under Indiana law. See Hoosier Ins. Co. v. Audiology Foundation of America, 745 N.E. 2d 300, 306, Ind. App., 2001. The court, relying on Trailer Bridge, the court assumed that a co-defendant's advertising idea cannot be used so as to create liability thereby adding works limitation not in the policy.